Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Ex.WW4/5 (colly): Copy of relevant pages of GFR 2005.

(vi) Ex.WW4/6 (colly): Copy of sanction orders regarding payment of wages to Workman.

15. WW-1 and WW-4 were duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Management, whereas, WW-2 and WW-3 were not cross- examined by Management despite opportunity. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and eventually, on a separate statement of Workman, Workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 18.11.2024.

20. He submits that Management has failed to produce any document to prove that it was unable to continue with engagement of Workman after 30.04.2022, on account of alleged change in requirement under GFR-2017 i.e. to avail the services of Sweeper-cum-Farash/MTS only through GeM portal of Govt. of India. Even otherwise, according to him, the said requirement, if any, to avail manpower services through GeM portal was not applicable to Workman, who was a permanent employee. The aforesaid plea of Management, according to him, is thus an after thought merely to defeat the claim of Workman for his regularization.

42. On the other hand, Ld. AR for Management submits that since the initial appointment of Workman was on temporary basis for a fixed term i.e. until 31.12.20216, despite subsequent extensions by Management from time to time and lastly for a period of four months until 30.04.2022, disengagement of his services w.e.f. 01.05.2022 does not fall within the definition of retrenchment since the same was on account of non-renewal of his contract of employment after expiry of period of his earlier engagement on 30.04.2022. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. He submits that disengagement of services of Workman by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 may also not be considered unjustified since the same was as per the approved government Policy under GFR-2017 and his continuous engagement after 30.04.2022 would have been in violation of the government orders.

43. So far as the plea of Workman regarding termination of his services by Management, during pendency of conciliation proceedings initiated pursuant to his claim for regularization of services, is concerned, it is submitted by him that the aforesaid claim was preferred by Workman with a malafide intent after he was duly informed by Management that Management shall not be able to continue with his engagement w.e.f 01.05.2022 due to availability of services of MTS/ Sweeper cum Farash on GeM portal of Govt. of India, in terms of GFR-2017.